Case law

Advanced Bldg. & Fabrication, Inc. v. Cal. Highway Patrol

918 F.3d 654 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Mar 13, 2019

Honan contends that Ayers violated clearly established law by participating in the search. We agree. … DISCUSSION To survive a claim of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show: "(1) that the right was violated; and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct." Isayeva v.

Soto v. Bzdel

214 F. Supp. 2d 69 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 26, 2002

was clearly established at the time of the [official’s] alleged violation.” … If courts deciding § 1983 suits on the basis of qualified immunity were to tackle the difficult substantive law, then the law would become 'clearly established' so that officers presented with similar factual scenarios in

Pesek v. City of Brunswick

794 F. Supp. 768 · District Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 1992

right asserted is clearly established. … violated a clearly established constitutional right.

CAREPARTNERS, LLC v. Lashway

545 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Sep 25, 2008

If the right was not clearly established at the time of the violation, the official is entitled to qualified immunity. 6 Id. A. … Therefore, the First Amendment rights advanced by CarePartners were clearly established for the purpose of evaluating the State employees’ qualified immunity defense.

Maxfield v. Bressler

20 F. Supp. 3d 1084 · District Court, D. Colorado · Nov 18, 2013

To resolve qualified immunity claims, a court must consider two elements: (1) whether a constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the violated right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation. … However, they assert that Bresslér is entitled to qualified immunity from suit because the violated right was not clearly established law.

Bolden v. Village of Monticello

344 F. Supp. 2d 407 · District Court, S.D. New York · Nov 4, 2004

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields a public official from civil liability when his conduct “does not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.” Richardson v. … As noted above, a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if (1) his conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights, or (2) it was objectively reasonable for the officer to believe his conduct

Nathan Rinne v. Greg Hasty

140 F.4th 470 · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · Jun 9, 2025

record violated a clearly established federal right.” … There are factual disputes as to these issues, and “[i]n order for us to reach [the Commissioners’] ‘legal argument’ that [they] . . . did not violate clearly established law, we would have to exceed our jurisdiction . .

Galette, C. v. NJ Transit

293 A.3d 649 · Superior Court of Pennsylvania · Mar 21, 2023

Accordingly, we will not discuss her further. 2 It is well-established that “a defense of governmental immunity is an absolute defense and is non-waivable,” thus, “it may be raised at any time[.]” Snead v. … Specifically, the Court has recognized that the historical circumstances of the passage of the Eleventh Amendment clearly evince an intent “to preserve the States' traditional immunity from private suits.”

Smith v. Howell

570 F. App'x 762 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Jul 2, 2014

Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at summary judgment,” the plaintiff has the burden “to show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right and (2) the constitutional right was clearly established.

Ortiz v. Torgenson

District Court, D. Utah · Apr 30, 2024

Qualified Immunity “The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officers from civil liability so long as their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established statutory … Even when government officials violate the law, qualified immunity shields them from damages liability unless the violative nature of the particular conduct is clearly established.”

Hall v. Thomas

190 F.3d 693 · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Sep 29, 1999

Finally, the district court held that even if the ADA did apply to prisons, the defendants would be qualifiedly immune from suit thereunder because Hall’s rights under the ADA were not clearly established at the time of … not clearly established prior to Yeskey.

Malik v. Arapahoe County Department of Social Services

191 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 14, 1999

support a conclusion that Coleman’s actions were outside the scope of absolute immunity, and that both defendants’ actions violated clearly established law. … clearly established at the time of the defendant’s actions.”

Wilson v. Zellner

200 F. Supp. 2d 1356 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 26, 2002

immunity because Plaintiff has failed to establish that the alleged constitutional right was clearly established at the time of Zellner’s actions. … Under this prong of the qualified immunity analysis the issue is whether it was clearly established at the time of Defendant Zellner’s actions that it was unlawful for a prison official to detain a prisoner for a period of

Redpath v. City of Overland Park

857 F. Supp. 1448 · District Court, D. Kansas · Jun 9, 1994

That objective test is in tension with, but not inconsistent with, a claim of qualified immunity where the existence of a violation of the clearly established law depends on the government official’s subjective intent. … When qualified immunity is granted because plaintiffs cannot establish a constitutional violation—rather than on a determination that the law was not clearly established—such a finding is equivalent to a decision on the merits

Higgins v. Town of Concord

246 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 31, 2017

The Court cannot determine whether Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. The defendants argue ' that Hodges and Whelan are entitled to qualified immunity on Counts One and Two. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 , 129 S.Ct. 808 , 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ("The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar ‘as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Moschetti v. Office of the Inspector General

District Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 26, 2024

Even if the Pickering factors weighed more in Moschetti’s favor, Westfall would be entitled to qualified immunity because it is not clearly established that the factors would favor an employee over an organization akin … See Brickey, 828 F.3d at 304 (holding qualified immunity was warranted when balancing of the employee’s and employer’s interests were not clearly established). 16 a substantial factor

Young v. Lacy

District Court, S.D. West Virginia · Sep 28, 2018

See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243 (holding that “petitioners [were] entitled to qualified immunity because [they] . . . did not violate clearly established law.”). … establish, it is unnecessary for this court to analyze this portion of the qualified immunity inquiry.

Lawmaster v. Ward

125 F.3d 1341 · Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · Sep 18, 1997

violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … We would be placing an impracticable burden on plaintiffs if we required them to cite to a factually identical case before determining they showed the law was "clearly established" and cleared the qualified immunity hurdle

John Meyers v. City of Cincinnati, Scott Johnson, Individually and as City Manager David E. Rager, Individually and as Director of Safety

979 F.2d 1154 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · Nov 12, 1992

This immunity is premised upon sound policy grounds: where governmental officials have duties that “legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served … Our reasoning in that opinion establishes that the contours of public employee speech were by no means “clearly established” in early 1988. Rather, we referred to the “current somewhat imprecise standard.”

Edward Wilhelm v. John A. Boggs, Deputy, and Joseph Tanner, Deputy

290 F.3d 822 · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · May 22, 2002

issue whether the federal right allegedly infringed was clearly established.” … established law?